NARASIMHA REDDY Vs. ROHINI HOSPITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The heirs of the deceased, Narasimha Reddy, filed a complaint No. C.D. No. 134 of 1994, before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Warangal, alleging medical negligence on the part of Rohini Hospital, a unit of Rohini Medical Pvt. Ltd. Diagnostic & Research Centre of Warangal and against Dr. K. Bucchi Reddy, respondent No. 2. It was contended that the deceased who was working as Head Master in Z.P. Singh School, was admitted in the Hospital, respondent No. 1, on 13.6.1996 at about 6.00 p.m. as he was suffering from vomiting and motions with blood since morning of 13.6.1996. Dr. Narendra Kumar who was present in the casualty ward attended on him. Thereafter, he was attended by respondent No. 2. He remained in the hospital for three days during which period a number of tests were conducted and blood transfusion and I.V. fluids were given. The condition of the deceased got deteriorated on 15th and 16th June, 1996 and he was required to be shifted to Medvin Hospital, Hyderabad, where he died on 17.6.1993 at 8.45 p.m. It is contended that the respondent failed to carry out and perform the necessary operation for stopping and controlling bleeding. The Complainants claimed Rs. 4,50,000 as compensation for deficiency in service.

(2.) The District Forum referred to medical book which, inter alia, providing that :Operative treatment: A decision should be made within (48) hours of the commencement of bleeding, particularly, if the patient re-bleeds. Experience has shown that when operation is delayed beyond that time the mortality rises steeply. Thereafter, the District Forum considered the relevant material which was brought on record and directed the respondents to pay Rs. 3,60,000 as compensation with interest at the rate of 15% p.a. from 2.3.1994, i.e., from the date of presenting the complaint till the date of depositing the same.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved, the opposite parties preferred Appeal No. 172 of 2000 before the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. That appeal was allowed by the judgment and order dated 13.2.2003 by holding that the Doctor (respondent No. 2) adopted the conservative course of treatment by giving medicine. The State Commission observed that, admittedly, in the present case, the patient was suffering from peptic ulcer from 1988; that the complainants have not examined any expert nor have filed any literature to throw light on the dispute; that Dr. Venkataram Reddy carried out endoscopy and that he was qualified to perform the same as he was M.S.F., F.C.S. It was further observed that he was the only one to conduct endoscopy as there was no other Gastroenterologist in the District. The State Commission, therefore, set aside the order of the District Forum. Hence, the complainants are in revision before us.